Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum

Has George III Returned?
It's a good thing that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's U.S. visit was upstaged by the dramatic reception Americans gave Pope Benedict XVI. Brown might have been booed if he hadn't delivered what aides called his "signature" speech within the cloistered walls of Harvard's Kennedy Center.

Brown's tedious, hour-long speech impudently demanded that we issue a "Declaration of Interdependence" in order to submit to global governance. That's another way of calling on us to repeal our Declaration of Independence.

No thanks for the advice, Mr. Brown. Brave Americans rose up and rejected Britain's royalist rule in 1776, and we've gotten along mighty well without transatlantic interference in our government for more than two centuries. We certainly don't want to reinstate any foreign supervision today.

The redundancy of Brown's outrageous semantics was oppressive. His speech used the word global 69 times, globalization 7 times, and interdependence 13 times. He referred to Kennedy 19 times, lavishing fulsome praise on John F. ("his influence abides everywhere"), Robert (he sent forth "ripples of hope"), and Ted ("one of the greatest Senators in more than two centuries").

Brown rejected the traditional concept of national sovereignty, which means an independent nation not subservient to any outside control, telling us to replace it with "responsible sovereignty," which he defined as accepting what he calls our global "obligations." Hold on to your pocketbook.

Brown admitted that his "main argument" is that we must accept "new global rules," "new global institutions," and "global networks." Brown's global rules include massive U.S. cash handouts and opening U.S. borders to the world.

Brown's use of well-known American political phrases was tacky. He tried to morph FDR's New Deal into a "New Global Deal," and JFK's New Frontier into "the New Frontier is that there is no frontier."

Brown even slipped in an attempt at thought control: "Americans must learn to think inter-continentally." He declaimed, "We are all internationalists now."

Using the rhetorical device of inevitability, Brown warned us that his vision of the globalist future is "irreversible transformation." He wants to "transcend states" and "transcend borders" as he builds the "architecture of a global society."

Brown peddled the nonsense that the peoples of the world "subscribe to similar ideals." He tried to tell us that all religions (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists) have "common values" and "similar ideals." No, they certainly do not.

Brown wants to increase the power of the United Nations to become the source of "an international stand-by capacity of trained civilian experts, ready to go anywhere at any time," and even be able to exercise "military force." Americans do not intend to cede such authority to the corrupt UN.

The silliest part of Brown's ponderous speech was his claim that "a global society" is "advancing democracy widely across the world." In fact, he doesn't even practice democracy in his own country.

Brown refused to allow the British people to vote on whether or not they want to accept the European Union (EU) constitution. He acquiesced in the plot of the constitution's author, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, to put the EU constitution into effect by calling it a treaty so it did not have to be voted on by the people. Brown was chicken about the treaty subterfuge and did not permit a photographic record of his participation. He sent his Foreign Secretary to perform the official treaty signing in front of cameras.

The EU constitution, now called the Treaty of Lisbon, requires all signers to surrender their sovereignty and democracy to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and judges in Strasbourg. The EU constitution takes away England's right to pass its own laws, forces England to surrender more than 60 UK vetoes of EU decisions, and gives the EU bureaucracy and tribunals total control over England's immigration policy.

Instead of a self-governing nation whose democratic system was developed over centuries, England is now ruled by what Margaret Thatcher called "the paper pushers in Brussels."

Brown made his globalism speech emphatic by repeatedly invoking the words "New World Order." The New World Order Brown tries to con the United States into accepting would mean taxing Americans for foreign handouts so immense they would make the Marshall Plan look puny, global warming rules to drastically reduce our standard of living, and putting American workers in a common labor pool with the world's billions who subsist on less than $2 a day.

Gordon Brown invited us to march forward to globalism "where there is no path." He's correct that there is no path on which we can expect globalism to lead us to a better world; in fact every path toward global government is a surrender of our liberty and our prosperity.

Gordon Brown should go back home and study up on how Americans refused to accept orders from King George III.

Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum

NAU: Conspiracy or Coverup?
Ever since Hillary proclaimed the Clintons as the victims of a "vast right-wing conspiracy," conspiracy has been the hot word used to ridicule your opponents. When President Bush wanted to avoid answering questions about whether the Security and Prosperity Partnership is the prelude to a North American Union connected by a three-country superhighway, he accused SPP critics of believing in a conspiracy.

By definition, conspiracies are usually secret. There's nothing secret about right-wingers organizing to criticize the Clintons and their goals, and there's nothing secret about the globalists' plans to morph the United States into a North American Union.

The elites, however, must be feeling the heat. Following the Hudson Institute's helpful suggestion to change the name of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the fourth annual SPP meeting held in New Orleans on April 21 was called the "North American Leaders Summit." The promoters of the TransTexas Corridor are trying to change its name to "regional loop."

To see what the elites are planning, you don't have to peek through keyholes or plant a spy under the table. Just read their published reports.

The words most frequently used to describe their goals are "economic integration," "labor mobility," "free movement of goods, services and people across open borders," and "harmonization" of regulations.

The Council on Foreign Relations published a major report on May 17, 2005, only two months after the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) was announced by President Bush, Mexico's Vicente Fox, and Canada's Paul Martin in Waco on March 23, 2005. The CFR document explaining SPP's goals and methodology was posted on the U.S. State Department website, thereby confirming its authenticity.

The CFR report explained that the three SPP amigos at Waco "committed their governments" to "Building a North American Community" by 2010 with a common "outer security perimeter," "the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico," allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access," "totalization" of illegal aliens into the U.S. Social Security system, and "a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution."

The prestigious Center for Strategic & International Studies published a report in 2007 called "North American Future 2025 Project." It advocates "economic integration," the "free flow of people across national borders," and "policies that integrate governments." The CSIS report even called for "harmonizing legislation" on intellectual property rights with other countries. That's a direct attack on our U.S. patent system, which is the key to U.S. leadership in inventions and innovation.

The CSIS had announced that its final report would be published in September 2007, but as of this date it has not been released. Maybe CSIS is being more cautious since its plan was exposed in the August 2007 Phyllis Schlafly Report.

The Hudson Institute published a 35-page White Paper in 2007 called "Negotiating North America: The Security and Prosperity Partnership." It states that SPP is the vehicle "for economic integration" with Mexico and Canada and even "combines an agenda with a political commitment."

The Hudson White Paper explains that SPP's "design" is for the executive branch to exercise full "authority" to "enforce and execute" whatever is decided by a 3-nation agreement of "civil service professionals" as though it were "law." That means evading treaty ratification and even congressional legislation and oversight.

Don't forget the importance of the Wall Street Journal and its longtime, very influential editorial-page editor, the late Robert Bartley. When Mexico's Vicente Fox called for NAFTA to evolve into something like the European Union, Bartley wrote: "There is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper."

One of the most influential business writers, Peter F. Drucker, wrote in his book, Post-Capitalist Society, that "The economic integration of the three countries into one region is proceeding so fast that it will make little difference whether the marriage is sanctified legally or not."

When Larry King asked Mexico's Vicente Fox about plans for a "Latin America united with one currency," Fox answered in the affirmative. He said that one currency was part of the "vision" of the Free Trade Area of the Americas that Bush agreed to in the Declaration of Quebec City in 2001. Some people have already named this new North American currency the amero.

So now we know why the Bush Administration won't build a fence to interfere with "labor mobility" across open borders. Now we know why Bush won't pardon Ignatio Ramos and Jose Compean, while winking at the prosecutor's deal to give immunity to a professional drug smuggler.

Now we know why Bush thumbed his nose at the overwhelming congressional votes (411-3 in the House and 75-23 in the Senate) to exclude Mexican trucks from U.S. roads. Now we know why Bush has been more persistent in pursuing "totalization" to put illegal aliens into Social Security than to promote his proposal to privatize a small part of Social Security for American citizens.

This is no conspiracy. It's all part of the "economic integration" of the North American countries that's been openly talked about for years. American citizens do not want to be integrated with any other country!

Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum

Globalism's Ripoff of U.S. Taxpayers
Are you having a hard time paying your bills, making your mortgage payments, or putting your kids through college? You need to know how much of your hard-earned income the government is skimming off and diverting into handouts to immigrants and illegal aliens.

You can read the depressing details in the new 70-page document called "The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Immigration" written by Edwin S. Rubenstein. A Manhattan Institute adjunct fellow with a mile-long scholarly resume, he has been doing financial analysis ever since he directed the studies of government waste for the prestigious Grace Commission of 1984.

The bottom line, which you need to know for your own bottom line, is that U.S. taxpayers are giving more than $9,000 a year in cash or benefits to each immigrant, a third of whom are illegal aliens. That's $36,000 for each immigrant household of four.

Since the U.S. has 37 million immigrants, legal and illegal, the national cost was more than $346 billion last year, which is twice our fiscal deficit. The cost of immigrants is so high because, as Rubenstein writes, "Immigrants are poorer, pay less tax and are more likely to receive public benefits than natives."

Big Brother hasn't told you this bad news, perhaps because the government doesn't want you to know why your paychecks are shortchanged. Even the huge amnesty bill that was defeated last year didn't contain one word about its budgetary consequences.

The financial burden that immigrants impose on education starts with the 3.8 million K-to-12 students enrolled in more-expensive classes for the non-English-speaking. When we add up the costs of hiring specialized teachers, training regular teachers, student identification and assessment, and administration costs, the total amounts to an estimated $1,030 per pupil, or $3.9 billion.

Of the 48.4 million pre-K through 12 public school children, 9.2 million or 19 percent are immigrants or the children of immigrants. In the next few years, immigration will account for virtually all the increase in public school spending.

Look at the $1.5 billion cost of incarcerating 267,000 criminal aliens in federal prisons. That's not the worst of it; prison capacity is limited, so 80,000 to 100,000 other criminal aliens have been prematurely released to prowl our streets.

Criminals also impose heavy private costs on their victims. Rubenstein estimates the losses of income and property, hospital bills, and emotional suffering at $1.6 million per assault- or property-crime offender.

Rubenstein's report includes all sorts of costs that other observers conveniently ignore, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit. EITC gives an average cash payment of $1,700 per year to 1 in 4 immigrant households.

The emergency medical treatment given free to illegal aliens is another enormous cost, causing some hospitals and emergency rooms to close. Emergency means any complaint from hangovers to hangnails, gunshot wounds to AIDS.

Even after some restrictions were imposed in 1996, 24.2% of immigrant households receive Medicaid, whereas the figure for native-born Americans is 14.8%. Rubenstein calculates that Hispanics account for 19.2% of Medicaid enrollment, while they are 13.7% of the U.S. population.

The Federal Housing Administration has had a policy of increasing home ownership among low-income immigrants and therefore approved FHA mortgages on homes with a down payment of only $200 to $300 and marginal income. Since mortgagors have so little invested in the house, they can walk away from it when they can't meet the payments, and this has resulted in neighborhoods of abandoned, boarded-up housing.

Refugees are a large and growing fiscal burden because they become immediately eligible for generous taxpayer-paid benefits. Evidence shows they stay dependent on these programs and start chain-migrating relatives under the "family reunification" law.

The Interior Department spends millions of dollars to clean up the mountains of trash discarded by illegal aliens crossing into California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

Some immigration advocates peddle the notion that immigration will solve the future financial burdens of Social Security. Rubenstein shows how foolish is this prediction because today's low-wage workers will surely become tomorrow's expensive retirees.

Another cost that few talk about is that immigrant workers depress the wages received by native-born Americans, and that causes a $100 billion shortfall in federal tax revenue. Harvard University Professor George Borjas found that each 10% increase in the U.S. labor force from immigration reduces wages of native-born Americans by 5.25%.

Court Case Proves 'LOST' Must Sink
The recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Medellin v. Texas proves why the Senate must defeat the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (known as LOST).

This case concerns a Mexican named Jose Medellin, an illegal-alien rapist-murderer gang member who is on death row in Texas. Medellin was convicted and sentenced to death after he confessed in 1993 to the savage rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston.

Long after Medellin had received full due process of the American legal system, in 2003 the Mexican government sued the United States in the International Court of Justice (known as the World Court). That is a United Nations agency located at the Hague in the Netherlands. In 2004 the World Court ruled 14-to-1 in favor of Mexico and ordered the United States to give Medellin another hearing, or perhaps another trial, at which he could receive the assistance of Mexican consular employees. At that time, the World Court was headed by a judge from Communist China.

A 1963 treaty known as the Vienna Convention, which the United States ratified in 1969, provides that aliens who are accused of crimes in a foreign country are entitled to request the assistance of consular officials from their home country. Medellin never requested such assistance until long after he was tried, convicted and sentenced, and after all his appeals were denied.

Of course, Medellin did receive the assistance of competent American legal defense lawyers throughout the process, which lasted longer that the lives of the girls he murdered. There is no reason to think that the presence of a Mexican consul could have made any difference in the outcome.

Incredibly, the Bush Administration knuckled under to the World Court and ordered the Texas courts to give Medellin another hearing. The Texas courts properly refused to honor the President's unconstitutional interference, and the Texas decision was upheld by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Bush's legal adviser in the State Department, John B. Bellinger III, made a revealing speech on June 6, 2007 in the Hague. He bragged that President Bush accepts the World Court's decision about Medellin (as well as about 51 other convicted Mexican murderers), and is trying to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to accept it, too.

Bellinger also said, "I have a staff of 171 lawyers who work every day . . . to promote the development of international law as a fundamental element of our foreign policy." He added that the Bush Administration entered into 429 international agreements and treaties last year alone, and now advocates a priority list of over 35 treaty packages including the Law of the Sea Treaty. American voters would like to know what are the 429 plus 35 international packages that the Bush Administration is pushing.

The good news is that despite the Bush Administration's arguments, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to accept the World Court's order because the Vienna Convention was not "self-executing" and thus does not preempt domestic criminal law.

However, Justice John Paul Stevens, concurring, noted that most other treaties are self-executing, and thus globalism would prevail in most other cases. For example, the Law of the Sea Treaty states that "decisions of the [Seabed Disputes] Chamber shall be enforceable in the territories of the States Parties in the same manner as judgments or orders of the highest court of the State Party in whose territory the enforcement is sought."

The Medellin case is dramatic proof of why the U.S. Senate should not ratify any more UN treaties that put American law in the noose of foreign tribunals. Not only are foreign tribunals hostile to the United States, but their judges have no comprehension of American law, due process, or trial by jury. They often meet in secret, they assert they can define their own jurisdiction, and their decisions may not be appealed.

American sovereignty would be severely diminished if the Senate is so foolish as to ratify the pending LOST treaty, officially called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Once we accept the validity and jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which is already functioning in Hamburg, Germany, we will be expected to submit to their anti-American decisions.

The Bush Administration is trying to claim that problems with the Law of the Sea Treaty have been "fixed" and that we can veto rulings we don't like. Just compare: we rejected the jurisdiction of the World Court in the Medellin case, but that didn't stop the World Court and President Bush from asking our Supreme Court to overrule Texas criminal law and accept the World Court's authority over U.S. domestic law.

The Law of the Sea Treaty claims jurisdiction over all the oceans of the world and all the riches in them. LOST's International Tribunal, a 21-member international court based in Hamburg, Germany, claims the power to decide all matters relating to the two-thirds of the earth's surface covered by the oceans.

Tell your U.S. Senators that the Medellin decision provides further proof that they should vote No on the Law of the Sea Treaty.